22 September 2012 2:05 PM

How many Anecdotes make an Anti-Dope Antidote? Another former cannabis user writes

Peter Hitchens writes : "Cannabis Comment Warriors, gird up your loins once more. Another former cannabis user has written to me to share his experience of this dangerous drug, misleadingly promoted as 'soft' and harmless.

"Perhaps after a while they will begin to see that these so-called 'anecdotes' have a common theme that might be worth investigating. Then again, perhaps the Comment Warriors will just get angry at having their complacency punctured by facts."

Here it is. Another 'anecdote'

A former cannabis user writes :' Since in your blog you have expressed gratitude to former cannabis users, or the kin of cannabis users who have reached out to share their experiences, I am moved to share my story with you.

'I smoked cannabis - the strong variety - intensely in my early teens. I started very early, even relative to my friends who were early users of drugs, and I consumed heavily. I remember being encouraged into smoking for a variety of factors: relaxed parents naive about the strength of new strains of the drug, a cool older sibling, hanging out with an alternative group of people, etc. I also clearly remember watching TV as a 13-year-old and seeing the downgrading of cannabis in the drug classifications on the news, and taking this as carte blanche.

'Almost every aspect of my life suffered. In terms of my emotional and social life, a lot changed - I went from popular, social, outgoing and highly confident, to isolated, introverted, emotionally fragile, self-doubting and paranoid. My intellectual faculties had also certainly been dulled - my wits, imagination and conversation had had the edge taken off them. With the scenery collapsing around me, I had the good sense to realise that it was cannabis that was a major cause of my difficulties and I rapidly curbed my consumption and within a few months kicked it completely.

'The final straw was the seriously unpleasant experience of getting arrested for possession - the first piece of negative conditioning from society I had received, and remain extremely grateful for, notwithstanding the lasting stain on my record. It only happened because I deliberately smoked cannabis in a very public place.

'Almost a decade later, I strongly suspect that my emotional and intellectual life is still hampered to some degree, though, thankfully, tolerably so. Scarcely a day passes where I do not feel some regret/anger about this aspect of my young life.

'The 'comment warriors' you refer to would presumably allege that my story, and others like them, are anecdotal and at best show correlation not causation between cannabis consumption and mental issues. I personally have almost no doubt that cannabis was a major cause of my difficulties. Why do the comment warriors consider this irrelevant? Introspection would clearly be of no value if I was concerned with, say, the chemical composition of my stomach acids, or the structure of my DNA. But the subject of concern here is *my mental life*: why aren't *my*insights, thoughts and feelings highly relevant when the subject is *me*?

'Of course such feelings don't fully verify that cannabis was the cause of my troubles - my thoughts and feelings would need to be anchored by something external to me - but they are surely at least part of the story... The second reason, again presumably to be dismissed as 'unscientific', is what might be called the phenomenology of cannabis consumption, the what-it-is-like to be high: it is extremely powerful to the point of hallucinogenic when consumed in high enough doses. It would be very surprising if altering your mind to this degree and extent didn't have some serious consequences...

'Thank you for speaking out on this issue. It would be great if more people understood the risks involved, especially young people who are possibly too green to make a serious decision for themselves and are being exposed to wrong advice.'

**As before, I have spoken to the author of this account, and verified his bona fides.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Wow!! Why is it so important for everyone to be right. I am a long time drug addict. I used for 45 out of my 56 yrs. I started with alcohol and soon went to smoking pot and hash. I graduated to injecting speed at the ripe old age of 13.
I have absolutely nothing against marijuana whatsoever as it is the least harmful of all drugs. However, I don't smoke it as I always felt the same as way Collin did while high. My bubbly personality went out the window, was paranoid a oh hell, depressed, serious etc. (look up allergies to thc), I have them all. I've also learnt that if someone is predisposed to psychosis, it can induce. I didn't remain, paranoid, depressed and all once it wore off but I refuse to ingest something that makes me feel like that. I'm actually envious of those who can smoke for the sake of relaxation and for medicinal purposes. Alcohol, opiates, cigarettes and all kinds of other drugs are legal and highly addictive and have torn families apart and actually killed hundreds of thousands of lives. Just sayin'. I am now clean from most drugs and for the 1st time in years I just ate some resin from a grinder. WTH am I doing. lol I'll find out soon enough. hehehe

"It's strange that someone who places so much of their argument on anecdotes will ignore the positive or innocuous anecdotes that exist."

Does every good anecdote equal a bad anecdote? A good story might be one of pleasurable euphoria for a short period of time. A bad story might be one of brain damage, a ruined life, and possibly the loss of it. Is there an equivalence here such that every good story is considered on a par with every bad story? If not, how many good stories are equal to a bad story? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? Ought any number of good stories, any at all, be considered on a par with any story ending in depression, brain dysfunction and possibly death?

I'm not suggesting an opinion one way or the other here, but perhaps it answers the question implicit in your comment that "someone who places so much of their argument on anecdotes will ignore the positive or innocuous anecdotes that exist."

"Do really mean to tell us
1.
We cannot use science to settle any controversial questions
because
2.
Science cannot reach unalterable conclusions?

And does 2 really follow from 1?

Let me answer the last question first, sir or madam.

No, your 2 does not follow from your 1.
Clearly causes must precede their effects and the clause which you have numbered 2 is, as you will see, introduced by the subordinating conjunction "because".
As for your proposition 1 above, much will depend on what you mean by "settle".
I take that word in the context concerned to mean "answer and clarify once and for all".
The sciences are not - as long as they remain sciences - in the business of advancing propositions which can never afterwards be logically challenged.

You continue, sir:

"Are existing scientific conclusions worthless just because they can be improved by further research? Maybe existing scientific conclusions are pretty good actually, even though further research could improve them."

I have made - and make - no comment about the worth of scientific investigations but maintain simply that such knowledge as they provide is inevitably provisional. I notice that you twice refer to subsequent researches merely 'improving' current theories. You seem, sir or madam, undisposed to conceive that they might actually be overturned by subsequent researches.

You ask:

"Do you really think that anecdotal evidence, what someone just happens to see and hear, would be up to the job?"

That would depend, of course, on how balanced and sensitive and talented that "someone" happened to be. Even in some of the sciences few non-practitioners can hope to be well enough qualified in the field concerned especially nowadays to able to assess the worth of theories currently accepted or the impartiality and sensitivity of the practitioners whose work has given rise to the theories. To that extent for many people even what is called "scientific" evidence amounts to accepting anecdotal evidence.
It's a matter of whom we put our trust in.

It's strange that someone who places so much of their argument on anecdotes will ignore the positive or innocuous anecdotes that exist.
Oh wait, I forgot, Peter has already made his mind up on the subject and so will deliberately present a biased view of the issue. I wouldn't necessarily care but he very often does the same wIthaca the science of the issue.

Peter, your problem is with the moral issues around drug taking. The reason you don't stick to that area of the debate is because you know that it doesn't carry much weight. Instead you exaggerate risks, make unfounded assertions and use anecdotes.

Peter Preston
Thank you for your post of 22nd. Sept. at 9:17pm.
You write
‘If so, on what evidence is any controversial matter to be decided?
Hardly scientific evidence …’
Do really mean to tell us
1.
We cannot use science to settle any controversial questions
because
2.
Science cannot reach unalterable conclusions?
And does 2 really follow from 1?
Are existing scientific conclusions worthless just because they can be improved by further research? Maybe existing scientific conclusions are pretty good actually, even though further research could improve them.
Anyway, if you are going to reject science as one way of settling controversial questions, what will you put in its place?
Do you really think that anecdotal evidence, what someone just happens to see and hear, would be up to the job?
At the very least, science can go one better than anecdote . It can do beyond the immediate ken of our eyes and ears, by using scientific instruments.

Dean Street writes: "Just an observation, but why are the offerings of the pro-cannabis posters here so dreadfully worded? Appalling grammar, spelling, punctuation.

It's because they are junkies, pure and simple. They can only think about themselves and their habit. They smoke pot because they like the way that feeling stoned makes their lives seem more interesting. There are few things sadder than watching a grown man or woman take too much interest in their own mind."

This is abuse of the most offensive kind and you are not fit to engage in this discussion.

I've only just caught up with the whole Brand-Hitchens malarky on Newsnight after being away in Hungary at the time, at a music festival where there was plenty of good drug taking and alcohol abuse going on. Behaviour that I fully endorse. It struck me that, watching it a few times, Russell Brand is particularly good at bringing out the most boorish qualities of Hitchens, exposing him as little other than a man with a closed mind and an embittered sense of entitlement who looks nothing other than to rudely interrupt others, accuse them of making ad hominem attacks where no such thing exists and generally revealing the worst excesses of brittle, right-wing conservative tomfoolery. Result! Cheers.

The very fact that cannabis can be so destructive to the lives of young people is the primary reason for regulating the market. Take this drug off the black market and out of the hand's of criminals. Tax it and spend this money on healthcare provision. Unscrupulous drug dealers do not ask for ID, so why do we allow this drug to be distributed by them?

This spiteful incoherent dirge from- : Krymsun | 22 September 2012 at 08:32 PM- really sums up the childish tantrum of the pot smokers 'guesting' here on this blog. How amusing that these pro-pot guests are immediately identifiable from the shocking standard of English, and the paranoia displayed in reaction to criticism of the precious cannabis. Still, despite the paranoia, you're not at all unhinged are you...?

In human beings? I've read that studies have been carried out on mice but I've never read anything about cannabis destroying human tumours. If it had, I'm sure cancer charities and research organisations would have this splashed over their websites. This is from Cancer Research UK's Science Update Blog -

"In experiments with mice, animals given very high doses of purified THC seemed to have a lower risk of developing cancer, and there has been some research suggesting that endocannabinoids (cannabinoids produced by the body) can suppress tumour growth. But there’s no solid scientific evidence at the moment to show that cannabinoids or cannabis can cut the risk of cancer in people."

and

"At the moment, there simply isn’t enough evidence to prove that cannabinoids – whether natural or synthetic – works to treat cancer in patients, although research is ongoing. And there’s certainly no evidence that ‘street’ cannabis can treat cancer."

From the American Cancer Society -

"More recently, scientists reported that THC and other cannabinoids such as CBD (cannabidiol) slow growth and/or cause death in certain types of cancer cells growing in laboratory dishes. Some animal studies also suggest certain cannabinoids may slow growth and reduce spread of some forms of cancer. However, these substances have not been tested in humans to find out if they can lower cancer risk. There is no available scientific evidence from controlled studies in humans that cannabinoids can cure or treat cancer."

Even if research does eventually lead to cannabis or a cannabis derivative curing cancer, wouldn't that be an argument for doctors administering it to patients in measured doses? I fail to see how this would be justification for legalisation for the purposes of recreation.

" Use your computer to find information about cannabis use and history.

No, thank you, sir. It isn't "information" that I want but reliably tested premisses. Just about anyone will give you information; the trick is to know when it is true. That's why I asked whether you were medically qualified, since you had described the substance under discussion as a "medicine".
I thank you for your candour in admitting that you were not medically qualified.

However, you continue:

"Willful ignorance is what you are practicing. The information about cannabis, mountains of it, is readily available to anyone willing to look. apparently you are not one of them."

Well, I am certainly "not one of them", as you say, because I find that I am quite stupid enough, as I am, without any need for artificially induced stupefaction. You are however quite mistaken in thinking that my ignorance - to which I readily confess - is a result of any "practice" on my part.
Playing the piano takes practice; the ignorance - by now in my case almost encyclopaedic - seems innate and is now pretty well terminal.
What amazes me, sir, is how you can have reached the conclusion on the strength of one short reply of mine that my ignorance is "willful", when I have spent a lifetime fighting what seems a losing battle against it.

Just an observation, but why are the offerings of the pro-cannabis posters here so dreadfully worded? Appalling grammar, spelling, punctuation.

It's because they are junkies, pure and simple. They can only think about themselves and their habit. They smoke pot because they like the way that feeling stoned makes their lives seem more interesting. There are few things sadder than watching a grown man or woman take too much interest in their own mind.

I concede that cannabis can be harmful to a very small percentage of users. Use your computer to find information about cannabis use and history. The claims I make are true. I am a cannabis expert, but to answer your question no, I am not a "doctor" trained in pharmaceuticals. They are, in the west, almost completely ignorant of the medical benefits of cannabis. When I discuss cannabis with them they immediately (with rare exceptions in my area) fall back on baseless propaganda with no scientific basis. I might as well be talking to Harry
Anslinger. LOL.

Willful ignorance is what you are practicing. The information about cannabis, mountains of it, is readily available to anyone willing to look. apparently you are not one of them.

Try and refute my claims. You can't. Again, do your own research. It's for your own good.

I would like to know where Peter Reynolds gets this 99.9% figure from. I notice another contributor talks about less than 1% regarding harm caused to cannabis users. I'm curious to find out if the figures are from the same source. Or maybe this is just a co-ordinated response?

Precisely how many "millions" do you personally know of, sir? By the way contributor Peter Rynolds writes:

"No reasonable person suggests that cannabis is entirely harmless. ".

You see the problem, sir. You exhort the reader to "come on. Think for yourself."
and yet how is the reader to know whether Mr Reynolds is right or you are? Before a reader can think for himself he has to want to think, to be able to think and in matters so controversial as this one is to have some reliably tested premisses from which to draw reasoned conclusions and yet you offer no instruction - or even guidelines - on any of these points.

"Do some of your own research." you urge the reader but might not the research itself be dangerous, if the substance concerned turns out to be unsafe. Might not those who declare it safe - or safe for some but not for others - have been already conditioned by the substance's effects to include themselves in the "safe for some" group?
Do you know, for example, of anyone prepared to declare that substance safe who is neither a "yes" man nor a user himself?
You speak about 'enjoying' "the safe medicine it provides" Since you describe the substance as "medicine", would you care to let the reader know whether you are yourself medically qualified?

Cannabis prohibition has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with money, markets, power, control, and the politics of fear.

Cannabis does not make you crazy, nor does it lower ones "IQ".
Cannabis does not cause cancer.
Cannabis is proven to shrink and destroy cancer tumors.
Cannabis is one of the safest most effective medicines known to man.
Cannabis is non toxic. It is impossible to overdose on the stuff.
Cannabis can be grown by almost anybody in a garden for a few dollars/pound.

The irony is that you folks who believe the government lies and allow them to manipulate your mind are hurting yourselves by depriving yourself of safe medicine.

Do some of your own research. I mean come on. Think for yourself. The person who wrote this "story" had a bad experience with cannabis. Millions upon millions of us enjoy the safe medicine it provides.

I live in a large, upper-working class estate in a town in area that is considered wealthy and prosperous. Over a decade ago, my neighbour was a sinle parent father, whose son was eventually lost to drugs and started causing trouble. The reasons why the son, who started out as a nice, normal young lad ended up by the time he was 15, being lost to drugs are too long to write about here. In a way, it is the same old story, but the conditions this boy grew up in were not in material poverty. There was a poverty in discipline. His father, the police, the school, (and I suppose himself), let him down. They have since moved away, and now some poor soul in the town they have moved to will have to cope with their rioutous behaviour. Drugs are (relative to the past) rife in this area, a wealthy area, and so it is not only poor ares that have this problem.

Jason writes "I also lead an active social life. I like to have a joint in the evenings to help me unwind in much the same way many people sit down to a beer or a glass of wine". But I like to pop out to the pub in the evenings for a half pint of real ale in a few different pubs -- or one depending on who I meet. ie the object of the excercise is to spend an hour or two in interesting company not to "unwind" on my own into a state of oblivion. Alcohol has always been the catalyst for friendly chat with 'all sorts and conditions of men' as the Book of Common Prayer describes us -- which of course until they were liberated -- meant women as well.

One thing that has been revealed to me through monitoring this debate is the extent to which selfishness is concealed by a sense of victimhood. Thus smokers of cannabis, who smoke the drug because they want to and because they find it pleasurable, obscure this basic fact by projecting guilt onto the government and acting as though any attempt to prevent them from needlessly doing something which is harmful to themselves and others is grossly tyrannical. In so doing they present themselves as the oppressed and deserving of sympathy, rather than those whose lives would have been better if they’d never been encouraged to use this drug by its marketing as a ‘soft’ substance, the consumption of which is not only normal but cool and beneficial.

Remember the self-pitying screech of protest from Sam Bowman, who presented the taking of drugs as some kind of rebellion in a totalitarian state: “As an adult, I should be able to stick whatever I damn well like into my body.”

'I smoked cannabis - the strong variety - intensely in my early teens" Pwahahahaha
According to earlier articles of yours, this "strong variety" has only been available recently. you simply write BS. Give up Peter, you are fighting a losing battle

How many anecdotal stories from people saying how much anti depressants had immeasurably improved their quality of life would change your mind on their use?

I also don't think there are many who would say cannabis is entirely harm free..all drugs have potential side effects and individuals react differently. Question is what is proportionate in terms of restricting individuals behaviour, and I think the current position is about right. You can't just pop to the local shop and buy the stuff, but the criminal justice system recognises that locking people up who goout of their way to buy and consume it is an over reaction.

@ callum.
Callum, ( note the upper case ) you make an interesting case that drug companies give out anti cannabis messages, because cannabis is a far better drug than the ones they produce.
I presume you are in a position to prove that poin,.otherwise its just a personal assumption. I think Drug companies are always looking to produce drugs cheaply and sell on expensively. So as cannabis grows naturally, producing it in a high quality medicinal dose. might be cheap compared to others .
The point being they don't, so it all just passes into the urban legends, pro cannabis users seem so frequently to quote.
If at the end of the day cannabis can be proven to be this panacea ,you and others claim it to be. just as morphine is. people cannot by the opium poppy from which its produced . So medicinal cannabis THC 's can be produced whilst still keeping personal useage a criminal act.
But theres the rub. Many selfish people want ALL drugs available . so not only they can get their fix. But to impress on other weak minded, how benificial it is. thus making their grubby existence pay.

its obvious that if its legal,more people will use it as it will be easier to purchase.unless its prescription only for medical use.i used it and it had a bad effect on me,so i stopped.I would not want it to be legal now that im a parent .I can at least advise my kids not to try it,i say its illegal because its not good for you.Whereas with junk food coke etc its a losing battle trying to stop them consuming it ,due to the mass marketing and easy availability ,so i presume this would be the same if cannabis was legalised

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.